[ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

Fatimata Seye Sylla fsylla at gmail.com
Fri Jan 14 13:25:31 UTC 2011


Agreed!

Fatimata


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A <
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

> In this environment, it is always useful to stay with principle and on
> message of principle in these matters.  I would just say "since we are not
> apprised of  a sufficient reason for a closed meeting, we would strongly
> recommend the default open meeting. At the minimum, we should expect
> interested parties accommodated as observers".
>
> If you like, you might further remind the participants of the several
> commitments to transparency in all dealings affirmed to the AoC.
>
> The parsing as to who qualifies to enter the pearly gates - this is the
> 'solomonic' reference, ala King Solomon of Biblical fame  - comes across as
> unctuous...maybe even special pleading by its select representation
> described; Tijani's point, btw.
>
> Carlton
>
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:18 PM
> To: SAMUELS,Carlton A
> Cc: ALAC Working List
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
>
> Hello Carlton,
>
> thanks for your kind comments - my answers below.
>
> Le 13/01/2011 15:36, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit :
> OCL:
> I'm presuming the back channel work to reach the GAC has failed, yes?
> Assuming it is the case, then to my mind much of the preamble might not be
> necessary; I think distillation is the watchword here, especially if you go
> with "is made with agreement of the ALAC"; it a slightly different take on
> the ALAC statement.  Should be best advised to just *state* the issue of
> concern and say what the ALAC-supported posture is.
>
> If it is the case the back channel contact was successful but the
> conversation inconclusive, then  being 'solomonic' about it comes across as
> wishy-washy.  State the principle that ALAC supports, inclusive of the
> circumstance where the ALAC would support a variant action, acknowledge that
> this meeting *might* require the exception and reiterate a clear position on
> why the ALAC would find the exception acceptable.
>
> The "back-channel" work to reach the GAC has not failed, but when speaking
> to GAC members informally, one actually speaks to... individual GAC members.
> If you wish to speak to the GAC as a whole, a more united voice to the GAC
> Chair obviously gives more weight to our argument than an informal channel.
> This statement is structured in order for it to be directly cut/pasted for
> comment to all GAC members. I very much welcome alternative text if parts of
> it appear "wishy-washy" - that's why I am asking for your input. That said,
> I don't wish to make it too long an email. Everyone knows what At-Large
> stands for.
> Also - we're not only aiming this letter at the GAC: the ICANN Board also
> has a say in this. Will the two tango in private or in public?
>
> As for this meeting requiring the exception - the exception would be for
> the meeting to be closed. The default, as interpreted from the Bylaws  is
> for the meeting to be open.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3377 - Release Date: 01/13/11
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>



-- 
Fatimata Seye Sylla


More information about the ALAC mailing list